1

Once we get down to the quantum level, mass is derived directly from energy.

From Wikipedia: Most of the mass of hadrons is actually QCD binding energy, through mass-energy equivalence. This phenomenon is related to chiral symmetry breaking. In the case of nucleons – protons and neutrons – QCD binding energy forms about 99% of the nucleon's mass. That is if assuming that the kinetic energy of the hadron's constituents, moving at near the speed of light, which contributes greatly to the hadron mass, is part of QCD binding energy. Considering that nearly all of the atom's mass is concentrated in the nucleons, this means that about 99% of the mass of everyday matter (baryonic matter) is, in fact, chromodynamic binding energy.

Since we know that velocity is a main cause of time dilation, would it not be true that it is the velocity of the hadrons constituents, moving at near c, that is the true source of time dilation for any object, including a planet or star?

G. Smith
  • 51,534
foolishmuse
  • 4,551
  • 1
    Velocity is one cause of time dilation. Whether it is the main cause depends on the system. The kinetic energy of quarks in a star contribute to the mass of the star but their motion is in random directions. There is no kinematic time dilation for the star in its rest frame, only gravitational time dilation. – G. Smith Feb 10 '20 at 18:44
  • @G.Smith are you saying that because the quarks are moving in random directions, that any time dilation caused by one quark is cancelled out by the opposite movement of a different quark? And by the way, my question is no way near the other question that you pointed me to. – foolishmuse Feb 10 '20 at 19:01
  • I voted to close as non-mainstream. John voted to close as duplicate. – G. Smith Feb 10 '20 at 23:09
  • Individual quarks are moving fast relative to an observer at rest with respect to the star. That observer sees those quarks’ time as being dilated. The star as a whole is not moving relative to that observer and she sees no kinematic time dilation for the star. – G. Smith Feb 10 '20 at 23:12
  • The reason that your question “is no way near the other question that [John] pointed me to” is that John’s answer is correct mainstream physics and your question is advocating an incorrect and off-topic personal theory. On this site questions are expected to be about mainstream physics. – G. Smith Feb 10 '20 at 23:31

1 Answers1

1

No. You get time dilation from any mass. Consider the Schwarzschild metric: it has gravitational time dilation, but no notion of what the mass is made of.

Anders Sandberg
  • 32,067
  • What I'm asking is if, in fact, no mass is required for time dilation, just velocity. A particle, even a massless particle like a photon, causes time dilation from it's velocity alone. Since all mass is in the end made up of particles moving at relativistic speeds, is this the source of gravitational time dilation? – foolishmuse Feb 10 '20 at 19:09
  • @foolishmuse - No, since GR does not distinguish between particles and fields. You can get a stress-energy tensor from fields that are not doing any motion, and yet that gives time dilation. – Anders Sandberg Feb 10 '20 at 21:44
  • I think you've jumped to my next concept and question. since the subatomic particles in a mass (planet) are moving, then they would interact with a quantum field, such as the Higgs field. This would in turn set up vibrations in the quantum field, and this is the reason why time dilation does not just occur within the planet, but also occurs, in a reducing amount, 1 metre, 100 metres and 10,000 metres above the planet. Is there anything wrong with this? – foolishmuse Feb 10 '20 at 21:57
  • @foolishmuse - Note that GR is a classical theory. It has no concept of quantum vibrations at all. Any time dilation predicted is due to the classical properties of matter and fields. So if you want to argue that there is some quantum effect, you need to argue that there would be extra time dilation (not observed so far) due to quantum effects. – Anders Sandberg Feb 10 '20 at 22:35
  • @foolishmuse all mass is in the end made up of particles moving at relativistic speeds This is false. For example, an electron at rest has mass, and this mass is not because of anything moving around inside it. – G. Smith Feb 10 '20 at 23:28
  • @foolishmuse I suggest that you stop inventing personal theories about time dilation and simply learn how mainstream physics explains it, and does so simply and elegantly. Personal theories are off-topic on this site. – G. Smith Feb 10 '20 at 23:28
  • @G.Smith Ok, I'll stick to earth, water, air, fire from now on. – foolishmuse Feb 12 '20 at 22:37